At 10:30 AM 10/19/2003, Joshua Slive wrote: >On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> http://cvs.apache.org/ shows that we have a *lot* of repositories that are hard for >> newcomers to sort through (and consume quite a bit of space) - if we httpd'ers can >> help mop up - I'm sure our efforts are appreciated. > >For that reason, and just to make clear to people what are the current, in >development, repositories, I'm +1 on moving all those (except httpd-pop) >under a graveyard, but retaining public accessibility. That is really >just a communication issue. I don't believe this would cause significant >pain to anybody, since I can't imagine anybody is using those repositories >on a regular basis. > >As far as tarring them up and sticking them on archive.apache.org, I don't >believe there is any need. The one advantage is that all the crazy people >who slurp up every repository on cvs.apache.org (by rsync or cvs) wouldn't >get at them. But retaining our history in a more "active" form is, I >believe, worth that price.
The question about apache-apr, apache-nspr and apache-2.0 is - are they a significant part of our history? These three I'd say no, they aren't - and should be tarred up for those interested in where Apache 2.0 might have gone instead. The same with httpd-proxy, since we moved that cvs history back into the httpd-2.0 tree (and having both - even in the graveyard cvs, is redundant.) Bill
